Sri M Prakash vs Sri Praveen Kumar A - Appeal of Civil Suit Dismissal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Sri M Prakash vs Sri Praveen Kumar A on 18 March, 2026

-1-
RFA No. 1783 of 2021

RESERVED ON : 04.03.2026
R
PRONOUNCED ON: 18.03.2026

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                     PRESENT
   THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                       AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1783 OF 2021 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:

SRI M PRAKASH
S/O LATE MARIYAPPPA,
AGED 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO 154, 6TH MAIN,
6TH PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
MAHAGANPATHINAGAR,
BASAVESHWARA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SUNIL.K.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.RAMESH.K.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR A
   S/O ARAKESH BASKARACHAR,
   AGED 30 YEARS,
   R/AT NO 37, ARUNODAYA,
   7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
   NEAR SWIMMING POOL,
   VIJAYANAGAR,
   BENGALURU - 560 040.

2. SRI PUNEETH KUMAR K R
   S/O PRASANNA,
   -2-
   RFA No. 1783 of 2021

   AGED 30 YEARS,
   R/AT NO 63, 3RD MAIN,
   3RD A CROSS, SVC NAGAR,
   MUDALAPALYA,
   BENGALURU - 560 072.
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (V/O/D 11.09.2023 - HELD SUFFICIENT)

   THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST
   THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN
   OS.NO. 8005/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XVII ADDITIONAL
   CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CITY,
   (CCH.NO.18) DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND
   INJUNCTION.

   THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
   JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
   JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED/ PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

                   CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

 The plaintiff is in appeal under [Section 96](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72075529/) of the

Code of Civil Procedure before us calling in question the

Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.2021 in

O.S.No.8005/2019 passed by the XVII Addl. City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18) (for short 'the

Trial Court').

-3- RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. The Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and

decree dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief

of declaration and injunction.

1. The parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Trial Court.

1. The brief factual matrix leading to filing of this

appeal are as under:

The plaintiff filed a suit before the Trial Court for the

following reliefs:

a) Pass a judgment and decree, declaring that
the sale deeds (1) dated 5.4.2018,
registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as
DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19, (2)
sale deed dated 7.12.2018 registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar,
Bengaluru, as DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-

009466/2018-19, (3) sale deed dated
4.6.2018 which was registered as
DOCUMENT No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19
registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and (4) -4- RFA No. 1783 of 2021 sale deed dated 16.08.2018 which is
registered in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as
Document No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, executed in the name of the plaintiff in
favor of the name of the defendant 1 and 2
respectively are null and void and they are
not binding on the plaintiff and the
schedule property belonging to the plaintiff.

b) Pass a judgment and decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants or
their agents, henchmen or anybody
claiming under them from interfering with
the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of
the schedule property.

c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this
Hon'ble Court deems it fit under the facts
and circumstances of the case in the ends
of justice.

1. The plaintiff claims that he is the absolute

owner of residential apartment bearing No.SF 001 (duplex

house) on the eastern portion of the 2 nd floor of the

building constructed on the property bearing site No.20,

existing Municipal No.20, PID No.38-1-20, 1st Main Road,

Garden Villas Chalukyanagar, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru - -5- RFA No. 1783 of 2021 560 072, BBMP old ward No.38, New Ward No.128 which

is more fully described as suit schedule property.

1. He further claims that he has purchased the suit

schedule property under registered sale deed dated

21.10.2015 bearing Document No.NGB-1-05421-2015-16

stored in CD No.NGBD 288 dated 21.10.2015 in the office

of the Sub-Registrar Rajajinagar, (Nagarabhavi),

Bengaluru executed by one N.Shanmugam.

1. He further claims that defendant No.1 herein

approached the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule

property, which the plaintiff was intended to sell.

Negotiations were held, wherein the sale consideration

was negotiated to Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore

Ten Lakhs only). On 16.01.2018, the plaintiff executed an

agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit schedule

property in favor of defendant No.1, for sale consideration

supra and received an advance of Rs.1,00,000/- and it

was agreed between the parties that the sale process has

to be completed within three months.

-6- RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. It is further claimed that defendant No.1 at the

time of agreement of sale requested the plaintiff to

provide copy of his PAN Card, copy of the sale deed, so

also the copy of the Khatha certificate stating that he has

to submit those documents to his banker to obtain the

loan to purchase the schedule property. The plaintiff in

good faith on defendant No.1 had given documents sought

by him. Thereafter, defendant No.1 did not turn up for

more than 1½ years from the date of agreement.

1. The plaintiff further claims that behind his back,

defendant No.1 got executed two registered sale deeds in

his favor through a fictitious person impersonating him.

One sale deed is dated 05.04.2018 registered in the office

of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document

No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19 and another sale deed is dated

07.12.2018 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as Document No.VJN-1-

09466/2018-19.

1. In the first sale deed, the apartment number is

mentioned as S-01 and in the second sale deed, it is -7- RFA No. 1783 of 2021 mentioned as S-005 and all other remaining particulars

are the same. The plaintiff further claims that he never

executed any sale deed, much less the sale deed stated

supra in favor of defendant No.1 and the sale deeds are

creature of impersonation.

1. In the first sale deed, the consideration was

shown as Rs.1,10,00,000/- and in the second sale deed, it

was shown as Rs.86,00,000/-. He further claims that

defendant No.1 has created the aforesaid two sale deeds

in his name by impersonating and forging his signatures

with a malafide intention to make unjust enrichment.

1. He further claims that defendant No.2 is the

friend of plaintiff and are well known to each other.

However, this defendant No.2 is also in collusion with

defendant No.1 and created two more sale deeds, one is

dated 04.06.2018 which was registered as Document

No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19, in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru and another sale deed

dated 16.08.2018 which was registered as Document

No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, in the office of the Sub- -8- RFA No. 1783 of 2021 Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, by impersonating the

plaintiff and forging his signatures. In the sale deed dated

04.06.2018, the apartment number is shown as ST-005

old number ST-001 and in another sale dated 16.08.2018,

it is shown as ST-001. He further claims that, both the

defendants in active collusion, with the aid of some

fictitious persons, created these four sale deeds in the

name of the plaintiff by impersonating and forging his

signature and thumb impression without his knowledge.

He further claims that the photographs shown in the

subsequent sale deeds differ from that of the photographs

of the original sale deed, so also the signatures and the

thumb impression.

1. He further claims that when the matter stood

thus, the vendor of the plaintiff approached him to resell

the property in his favour. At that point of time, when the

plaintiff obtained Encumbrance Certificate relating to the

suit schedule property from the office of the concerned

Sub-Registrar, he found four sale deeds stated supra said

to have been executed by him in favor of defendants -9- RFA No. 1783 of 2021 entered in the E.C. The plaintiff thereafter, obtained

certified copies of the four sale deeds and on verification

came to know about the fraud played by defendants.

Thereafter, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the

jurisdictional Chandra Layout Police on 30.06.2019. The

police upon the complaint, registered Crime No.121/2019

on 09.07.2019 for offences punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC and arrested defendant

No.1, however defendant No.2 was absconding. The

investigation was under progress as on the date of filing of

the suit.

1. The plaintiff further submits that the defendants

taking undue advantage of the above four sale deeds may

come and interfere with his possession and enjoyment of

suit schedule property through some other third party, as

he came to know that some third party has started

enquiring about the suit schedule property at the instance

of the defendants. Accordingly, he filed the suit for the

aforesaid reliefs.

• 10 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. Upon registration of the suit in

O.S.No.8005/2019, the Trial Court issued notice. The

defendants despite service of notice, did not appear,

accordingly, they were placed ex-parte. The Trial Court

thereafter framed 5 point for consideration, which reads as

under:

CA±À 1:- ªÁ¢, ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 1 EªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05-04-2018
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 07-12-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ 2 gÀªj
À UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

04-06-2018 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 16-08-2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀAvÀºÀ
PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÁ¢UÉ §zÀÞ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ
¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

CA±À 2:- ªÁ¢ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ
±ÀÄ®Ì PÀ®A 38(1) gÀ Cr ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁzÀAvÀºÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì
vÀÄA©gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 3:- ªÁ¢AiÀÄ zÁªÁ C£ÀĸÀÆa D¹ÛUÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ
vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 4:- ªÁ¢ vÀ£Àß ªÁzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è «£ÀAw¹zÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
CA±À 5:- AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?

(Kannada Version, as it is in the
Judgment in Vernacular language)

Issue No.1:- Whether the Plaintiff proves that the
sale deeds executed in favor of Defendant
No.1 on dated: 05-04-2018 and 07-12-2018,

• 11 - RFA No. 1783 of 2021 and in favor of Defendant No.2 on dated: 04- 06-2018 and 16-08-2018, are not binding upon the plaintiff?

Issue No.2:- Whether the plaintiff proves that the
proper Court Fee has been paid to the Hon'ble
Court under Section 38(1) of the Karnataka
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act?
Issue No.3:- Whether the plaintiff proves that the
Defendants have caused interference/
obstruction to the plaintiff's possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
Issue No.4:- Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the
plaint?

Issue No.5:- What Order or Decree?

(English translation, as provided by learned
counsel for the appellant)
16. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim,

examined himself as PW-1 and produced 16 documents,

marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and closed his side. Among the

said documents, Ex.P1 is the original sale deed executed

in favor of the plaintiff by M.Shanmugam and the other

four sale deeds which were marked as Ex.P5, P6, P7 and

P8 are the fictitious sale deeds as per the plaintiff.

• 12 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. The Trial Court after hearing the plaintiff

proceeded to record that the plaintiff has failed to prove

his case on his own and further held that he has not paid

appropriate Court fee as per Point No.2. As such, held that

the suit is not maintainable and further stated that the

judgment relied on by the plaintiff in AIR 2010 SC 2807

is not applicable as the facts in the case on hand are

different from the case in said judgment and proceeded to

dismiss the suit on all points. It is this Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court is called in question in this

appeal.

1. Heard Sri.Sunil.K.N, learned counsel for

Sri.Ramesh.K.R, appearing for the appellant. Vide order

dated 11.09.2023 - notice to the respondents is held

sufficient.

1. Sri.Sunil.K.N, on short point submits that the

reason of the Trial Court to non-suit the plaintiff on all the

aspects are stated at Paragraph No.16, wherein the Trial

Court has held that in order to establish that a document

is genuine, the disputed signature has to be obtained and

• 13 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 sent to the hand writing expert and only after securing the

information of the hand writing expert clarifying that the

document is genuine or not, the Court can consider the

said document, however, the plaintiff has not made any

such attempt to send the documents for handwriting

expert. In these circumstances, the Trial Court held that in

the absence of any attempt by the plaintiff to seek for

hand writing expert opinion, the Court cannot come to a

conclusion that the documents produced at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8

are created documents. On the basis of the same, the Trial

Court proceeded to hold that since the plaintiff has failed

to prove his case, the absence of the defendants will not

enure to the benefit of the plaintiff to accept his pleadings

and evidence and proceeded to dismiss the suit.

1. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal

of the documents at Ex.P5 to P8 when compared with

Ex.P1 - the original sale deed, differs with respect to

photographs, so also there is a difference in signature and

thumb impression which are clearly visible even to the

naked eye. The Trial Court has failed to consider this

• 14 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 aspect of the matter and in a haste, formed an opinion

against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit, which is

erroneous and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, he

sought to allow the appeal and decree the suit as prayed

for.

1. Having considered the submissions, we have

perused the entire appeal paper as well as the Trial Court

record.

1. As rightly contented by learned counsel

appearing for the appellant, a perusal of Ex.P1, the

original sale deed wherein the photograph of the plaintiff is

found along with the signature marked as Ex.P1(a) and

(b), as well as the thumb impression, manifestly differs

with the photograph, thumb impression and signature of

the person found in Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, and the same are

clearly visible to the naked eye. The Trial Court has failed

to consider this aspect of the matter. Even the signature

found in each page in Ex.P5 to P8 differs to one another on

each page. This clearly shows that the plaintiff has been

impersonated and by forging his signature and thumb

• 15 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 impression, the documents at Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 came into

existence.

1. The finding of the Trial Court at Paragraph

No.16 is erroneous. The Trial Court has held that the

plaintiff has not sought for sending the document for

handwriting expert in order to ascertain the genuineness

of the document. The Trial Court failed to consider [Section

73](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/770022/) of the Evidence Act.

1. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

enjoins the power on the Court to compare the signature

in admitted or proved documents to verify the

genuineness of the document in dispute, however, the

Court is guarded with extreme caution while comparing

the said signature/seal/writing with the admitted

documents.

1. For easy reference, we extract Section 73 of the

Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:

1. COMPARISON OF SIGNATURE, WRITING OR SEAL WITH OTHERS ADMITTED OR PROVED. - In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports

• 16 - RFA No. 1783 of 2021 to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court
to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling
the Court to compare the words or figures so written
with any words or figures alleged to have been written
by such person.

1. Under the said provision, the Court is

empowered to compare signature/ handwriting on the

admitted and proved document and the signature and

thumb impression found on the other document, which is

disputed. The Trial Court has failed to compare the

photographs, thumb impression as well as signature

available in Ex.P1 which is admitted and the other

photographs, thumb impression and signature found in

Ex.P5 to P8 which are disputed, manifestly differs with the

original and admitted photograph, thumb impression and

signature. Even with the naked eye, the signatures found

in each page of Ex.P5 to P8 clearly shows that they are

forged one and have no similarities with one another. Even

the thumb impressions found in Ex.P.1 on one side and

• 17 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 found in Ex.P5 to P8 on the other, are not matching with

one another. In these circumstances, the finding of the

Trial Court especially at Paragraph No.16 is erroneous and

which is the main reason for non-suiting the plaintiff.

1. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in

catena of judgments held that it may not be necessary for

the Court in every case to send the documents to experts

if the tampering and/or alteration is obvious on the face of

the documents.

1. Our view gains strength from the recent

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [SYED

BASHEER AHMED VS. M/S TINNI LABORATORIES

PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186157996/) reported in 2025

INSC 1030 (reportable judgment). In the Judgment, the

Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that the Courts are not obliged in

every case to refer the documents to experts and secure

the expertise opinion, when the tampering and alteration

is obvious on the face of the documents.

• 18 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. In the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the

appeal was preferred by the party against the judgment of

the High Court wherein the High Court while reversing the

judgment of the trial Court has held that there is clear

alteration insofar as recital with respect to item No.2 in the

agreement which is the base for the claim of the plaintiff,

relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [SETH LOONKARAN SETHIYA VS. MR. IVAN E.JOHN

AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1012649/) reported in (1977) 1 SCC 379.

1. The Hon'ble Apex Court having found that the

judgment of the High Court is based on the sound legal

principle, as the High Court found that the alterations is

clearly discernible, held that no case is made out to

interfere with the judgment of the High Court and rejected

the appeal.

1. Before adverting to exercise power conferred

under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the

available record as the disputed records are the photo

copies of the originals, we have directed Sri.Mohammed

Jaffar Shah., learned Additional Government Advocate to

• 19 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 secure the records under the custody of the concerned

Sub-Registrar to verify with Ex.P1, wherein the

photograph, signature and thumb impression of the

appellant is admitted and proved.

1. Sri.Jaffar Shah., learned AGA upon direction

intimated the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar to submit the

legible photocopies as well as C.D, wherein the documents

are recorded. The office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar

furnished the legible photocopies of the Ex.P5 to P8 as well

as the document secured in the C.D in their office.

1. We have gone through the documents secured

in the Compact Disc and compared the same with that of

original Ex.P1 - the admitted and proved document. On

comparing Ex.P1 - the original admitted and proved

document with that of Ex.P5 to P8, the photographs,

signatures as well as the thumb impression are manifestly

differ and not matching with the original Ex.P1. The person

appeared in Ex.P1 is different in each Ex.P5 to P8, so also

his thumb impression and signature. The thumb

impression found in the admitted and proved document,

• 20 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 that is, Ex.P1 and the thumb impression found in the

disputed documents, that is, Ex.P5 to P8 manifestly

differs. Even the pattern of finger print changes from

Ex.P.1 - the original admitted and proved document and

that of the disputed Ex.P5 to P8. In Ex.P1 the finger print

pattern is in Whorls/Spiral shape, however in Ex.P5 to P8,

the pattern of finger print is in Loops/Lasso, that is, shape

of shell. Even the stroke of the signature at each page of

Ex.P5 to P8 differs, whereas the signature in Ex.P1 is

consistent and is admitted and proved. In these

circumstances, nothing more is required to come to a

conclusion that the documents at Ex.P5 to P8 are forged

and created by impersonating the appellant herein and by

forging his signatures as well as thumb impression. The

Trial Court ought to have exercised the power conferred

under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. However,

erred in law to consider this aspect of the matter which

has resulted in dismissal of the suit which is erroneous and

unsustainable in law, accordingly we answer Point No.1 in

favor of the plaintiff.

(emphasis supplied)

• 21 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. So far as point No.2 regarding payment of

Court Fee is concerned, the learned counsel relied on

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in [SUHRID SINGH @

SARDOOL SINGH VS. RANDHIR SINGH AND OTHERS](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1188410/) reported in AIR 2010 SCC 2807, wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 has held as

under:

"6.Where the executant of a deed wants it to be
annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if
a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to
seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non est, or
illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference
between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in
regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought
out by the following illustration relating to 'A' and 'B' -
two brothers. 'A' executes a sale deed in favour of 'C'.
Subsequently 'A' wants to avoid the sale. 'A' has to sue
for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B',
who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it,
he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed
by 'A' is invalid/void and non-est/illegal and he is not
bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the
deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form
is different and court-fee is also different. If 'A', the
executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed,
he has to pay ad-valorem court-fee on the consideration
stated in the sale deed. If 'B', who is a non-executant, is
in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is
null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has
to merely pay a fixed court-fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a
non-executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not
only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also
the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an

• 22 - RFA No. 1783 of 2021 ad valorem court-fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court- fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7.

1. In this case, there is no prayer for cancellation
   of the sale deeds. The prayer is for a declaration that
   the deeds do not bind the "coparcenery" and for joint
   possession. The plaintiff in the suit was not the
   executant of the sale deeds. Therefore, the court-fee
   was computable under section 7(iv) (c) of the Act. The
   trial court and the High Court were, therefore, not
   justified in holding that the effect of the prayer was to
   seek cancellation of the sale deeds or that, therefore,
   court-fee had to be paid on the sale consideration
   mentioned in the sale deeds.

2. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside
   the orders of the trial court and the High Court directing
   payment of court-fee on the sale consideration under
   the sale deeds dated 20.4.2001, 24.4.2001, 6.7.2001
   and 27.9.2003 and direct the trial court to calculate the
   court-fee in accordance with Section 7(iv)(c) read with Section 7(v) of the Act, as indicated above, with
   reference to the plaint averments."

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly said that

when a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has

to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non-est or

illegal or that it is not binding on him and when a non-

executant who is in possession of the property and sues

for declaration that the deed is null or void and does not

• 23 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 bind on him or his share, he has to merely pay Court fee

on the value of the reliefs sought. In the case on hand, the

reliefs sought, especially at Prayer (a) to declare that the

sale deeds stated in the said relief as null and void and

they are not binding on the plaintiff and the suit schedule

property belongs to the plaintiff, accordingly the Court fee

paid on the value of the relief claimed is just and

sufficient. Accordingly, Point No.2 framed is answered in

the affirmative.

1. Since we have held that the documents at

Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 are all fictitious and created by

impersonating and forging the signature of the plaintiff,

there is all probability of defendants taking undue

advantage of the same and may cause interference with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by

the plaintiff. Accordingly, a case has been made out to

grant permanent injunction against the defendants as

sought in the suit. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in

favor of the plaintiff.

• 24 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021

1. In view of answering Points No.1 to 3 in favor of

the plaintiff, the plaintiff has made out a case to answer

Points No.4 and 5 in his favor. Accordingly, Points No.4

and 5 are also answered in favor of the plaintiff.

1. In view of the foregoing reasons, we proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

i. The Judgment and Decree dated

23.07.2021 O.S.No.8005/2019 passed by

the XVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-18) is set

aside. The suit is decreed.
ii. The prayer as sought in Prayer (a) is

       granted holding that (1) Sale Deed dated

       05.04.2018, registered in the office of the

       Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar, Bengaluru, as

       Document No.VJN-1-00151-2018-19, (2)

       Sale Deed dated 07.12.2018 registered in

       the office of the Sub-Registrar, Vijaynagar,

       Bengaluru,    as       Document    No.VJN-1-

• 25 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 009466/2018-19, (3) Sale Deed dated

   04.06.2018 registered in the office of the

   Sub-Registrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru as

   Document No.VJN-1-02139-2018-19 and

   (4) Sale Deed dated 16.08.2018 registered

   in    the   office     of     the    Sub-Registrar,

   Vijayanagar,     Bengaluru          as   Document

   No.VJN-1-05165-2018-19, executed in the

   name of the plaintiff in favor of defendants

   No.1 and 2 respectively are declared as

   null and void and not binding on the

   plaintiff and the suit schedule property

   belongs to the plaintiff.

iii. There shall be a permanent injunction

   restraining the defendants, their agents,

   and    henchmen         or    anybody      claiming

   through or under them from interfering

   with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and

   enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

• 26 -

RFA No. 1783 of 2021 iv. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

However, no order as to costs.

v. Registry is directed to draw the decree

        accordingly.

Sd/-

(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE

                                      Sd/-

(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
TKN